Comparing equivalence and skopos translation theories

Equivalence and Skopos

Translation is a profession that has been increasingly in the spotlight, not least because technology has developed to such an extent that even contemporary computers can translate texts. Often, these make somewhat more sense than the first attempts by machines to translate works written by human beings. Because of the nature of and possibilities offered by translation today, various theories have been constructed to explicate the various purposes for which translation might be used. Two of the most prominent theories in this regard are the theories known as Equivalence, promoted by Nida, and Skopos theory, proposed in opposition by Vermeer. Whereas Equivalence theory promotes the, as far as possible, word-for-word translation of a text, Skopos theory suggests that the purpose of the translated text should also be taken into account when constructing the translation.

According to Sunwoo, Skopos theory is first theory to suggest that extra-linguistic factor such as the client, the culture of the recipient, and the purpose of a text should be taken into account when translations are constructed. This was a new movement in translation theory, known as "functionalism." As such, the relationship of the source and target text changed completely from one of an equivalence between the texts to one where the source text is seen as merely an "source of information," which can wholly or partly be simulated into a newly created text for use by a specific client with a specific culture. One disadvantage of the theory is that it is somewhat vague, and students find themselves a little in the dark regarding what needs to occur during the translation process.

However, it may be suggested that this vagueness is somewhat deliberate, as it suggests the arbitrary nature of the relationship between source and target text. The translator is to be creative in his or her efforts when translating the source text according to the needs and requirements of the target audience and the purpose of the target text (Skopos Theory in Practice, 2007). Because these needs and purposes will fluctuate with every text, it is impossible to construct an exact science surrounding what should be done during the translation process itself. This is left up to the experience and creativity of the translator. Indeed, the main requirement for this theory to realize is the fact that it promotes a negotiation between the translator and the client, where the client specifies the conditions under which the target text should function. The target text is no longer the "sacred original" according to its function in equivalence. Instead, the translator chooses among three major purpose kinds to construct a translated text for the appropriate audience. The first type of purpose is the general purpose of the translator in constructing the translation (Skopos Theory in Practice, 2007). The second is the communicative purpose of the text, which could entail something like providing information to a certain audience type. The third kind of purpose is the strategic purpose of a particular procedure, such as free translation. The strategy of the translation is determined by the function of the target text. Importantly, the main premise of this theory is that the target text may not have the same person as the source text. There could for example be a different sociolinguistic, pragmatic, and sociocultural context and significance to be followed by the target text.

Equivalence, in its strictest scientific sense, refers to an absolute symmetrical relationship between words of different languages (Zakhir). This assumption was then used as the basis for Nida's equivalence theory, which holds that the source and target text should be as close as possible to each other in terms of diction and linguistic elements. This was also the premise for developing automatic translation platforms, which provided a much faster product than Skopos translation.

According to Zakhir, Roman Jacobson was one of the earliest theorists to study equivalence in meaning among languages. He also acknowledged that there is no full equivalence among all the words of all languages. Differences are also found among structures, terminology, grammar, and lexical forms. Hence, this was considered an important obstacle to providing a true translation of a source text.

Nida, on the other hand, acknowledged these differences not so much as an obstacle to true translation, but rather as challenges to overcome in translating texts. In his work on Bible translation, for example, he acknowledges element such as context and culture that could influence the meanings of words. This led to his distinction among linguistic meaning, referential meaning and emotive meaning.

While this is closer to Skopos theory than the original meaning of equivalence, Nida nonetheless still strives for equivalence in meaning, as far as this is possible. Instead of creating an entirely new text from the source, he attempts to create a text as close in meaning as possible to the original, while at the same time being as meaningful as possible to the target audience.

In this, Nida was strongly influenced by Chomsky's "generative transformational model," which focuses on the universal features of human language. This provided a new platform, besides the concrete meanings of words themselves, to achieve equivalence. According to this theory, all language has a deep structure and surface structure. The deep structure contains the core meaning, while the surface structure changes according to elements such as culture and context. For his translation of the Bible then, Nida achieved equivalence by means of concentrating on the deep structure.

Nida's concern was then how the sign functions within a given society. In this sense, his equivalence theory is quite close to the Skopos theory, in that it acknowledges the changing nature of contextual features. On the other hand, it differs significantly in terms of the functioning of these factors. Whereas Skopos theory promotes a focus upon functional factors in constructing a translation, Nida's focus is upon concentrating on the source text and retaining its core meaning as far as possible.

In this regard, Nida distinguishes between two types of equivalence; formal and dynamic. Formal equivalence refers to the translated text, its message, form and content. This equivalence requires a close similarity between the source and target texts. Dynamic equivalence, on the other hand, refers to the "equivalent effect," where the relationship between message and recipient are at issue. These should close match the relationship between the message and recipient of the original text. Hence, even in its acceptance of factors that influence meaning, equivalence is somewhat more rigid in its aims and objectives than Skopos theory.